Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 25

< July 24	July 26 >

July 25 edit

Template:Nethope Members edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Nethope Members (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Single use template. Information can be transcluded into the parent article NetHope. The Banner talk 21:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into article per nom —PC -XT + 04:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: a template used for just the one page is pointless. Ollieinc (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bare url references need to be filled out; topic of the content must be specified (is it dates that members joined?); if these quality issues can be addressed, I would support a Merge into the article content. --Zfish118 (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't edit it during the discussion, but I'll at least fix the references after this closes if nobody else does, (unless it is deleted, of course.) The years are when they joined, according to the later bare references. —PC -XT + 02:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Some wikilinks need fixing, too. World Wildlife Fund has an article. —PC -XT + 02:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Televisa telenovelas 1960s edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Televisa telenovelas 1960s (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Nearly all redlinks, and those entries that aren't are nearly all NOT to telenovela articles but point to film, book, song, album articles, to disambiguation pages, or to something else equally irrelevant. Template could be userfied pending creation of the necessary articles.

There are several other templates in the same series which could also be nominated for TfD for the same reason, but this one is an extreme example. NSH002 (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: First of all create the template, so we can go slowly creating all those articles telenovelas, many of these items exist in the Spanish Wikipedia unfortunately do not exist here, but I'll create. for instance El diario de una señorita decente.--Damián (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The correct thing would be to write the articles first. You can only navigate between existing articles. The Banner talk 22:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I disagree, because I just can not write in a day all these articles, and also help for other users to see the template to create these items. Now I'll create some items, but if I want to delete do what they want, I will not lose my time here.--Damián (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should have written the articles before you published the navigation template. The Banner talk 23:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment the others are correct that the articles should be created before the navbox. However, if you find it easier to create the navbox first, there is nothing wrong with creating one in your own user space, which can later be moved into the template space when the articles have been created. --NSH002 (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Userfy, or alternatively comment out sections with no blue links~~ Keep since steady progress is being made, and the red sections are commented out until they are being expanded —PC -XT + 04:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adding red links to a nav template is fine if you intend working on them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment: That's exactly what I'm doing!. But hey, it's what others decide, I have already created some items and the template being used.--Damián (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing fine! But to avoid headaches I would suggest that you give every year about five links. That gives you a better chance on a withdrawn nomination and a happy author. The Banner talk 20:48, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are doing fine! I will change my !vote to keep once each year has at least one blue link, because I expect you will continue filling this out. —PC -XT + 02:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on it, but in a day or two can not create many items, it's something you get tired, and do it relaxed. But if I'm working in each of those years telenovela.--Damián (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Damián80: All you have to do is comment out the red links until you get to them. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Blofeld, you are needlessly complicating things for Damián80. Let him work in peace for a couple of days. Let us say, till Friday. Usually we have no deadline, so giving him some space to work. That will harm nobody. The Banner talk 12:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is it complicating things?? A too huge number of red links will attract delete votes here. I don't want him to feel rushed in blue linking them all. Let him do it by year gradually at a comfortable pace. I've told him to let me know when he wants years opened up again so there should be no problem.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld editions were correct, say we look good for now. To what can finish all items.--Damián (talk) 16:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Frietjes (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Society portal box bottom edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Society portal box bottom (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

Unused template DexDor (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unused template; the complementary template Template:Society portal box top was deleted in 2011. Ollieinc (talk) 03:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Open curly bracket edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the template below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Redirect - Redundant template; clear consensus to redirect. mol uɐɯ 13:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Template:Open curly bracket (talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages)

This has only one transclusion. I can't see how it is like {{!}}, as the curly bracket doesn't have other functions like | does. Pointless template. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (talk) @ 09:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Redirect: without it, some pages display highlighting incorrectly if a bare { is used, such as MasterChef New Zealand (series 5) - see the difference between with the template and without the template. Without using the template, the rest of the article will be highlighted orange by default. Ollieinc (talk) 09:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's really so much of a problem. How many people actually use Syntax Highlighter? Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chatter) @ 20:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or delete: {{(}} does the exact same thing. Either redirect the template there or delete it and change the one transclusion to the shorter template. mol uɐɯ 13:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to {{(}} as redundant —PC -XT + 04:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to {{(}} as the fully specified name -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.